tv [untitled] August 7, 2014 3:00pm-3:31pm PDT
people come because they love the mission and the clients. what we're unable to provide in salary we have people that really want to do that work. it's not easy. it demands a particular commitment. >> thank you. all right. commissioner singer. >> congratulations. >> thank you. >> we see very few organizations that find buildings in the area that you secured a new building in the current economic climate for the work you're doing so i think that is great and seems like it's tucked up closer to the tenderloin area which is not yet quite as vibrant as the soma area. i was wondering if i remember colleen's slide correctly there were high 38 or 37% of your clients are from
those two zip codes. >> right. >> that we had all of the comparative data from. where are the rest from? >> tenderloin. a large percentage of clients come from the tenderloin so i would say tenderloin, the two zip codes you saw, the western edition and bay view hunter's point so that's where we draw the client base from typically. i would say after the two listed is the tenderloin. a lot of the clients live in the sros in the tenderloin. >> so 94102 isn't the tenderloin? >> it is the tenderloin so the mission -- because we're in the mission so the mission which i didn't list that one. sorry. i thought thats of was mission. mission district and the western edition and nine two one 04. >> thanks. >> we do feel pretty lucky to
get the building there. there are big fancy condos going up around us. >> commissioner sanchez -- i too congratulate you and your colleagues and providing an exceptional service. i guess i was thinking too about how soma has changed in many ways, yet in many ways it hasn't changed because you still have at risk populations. you still have a significant primarily filipino population. many of the families live in the area, the filipino receiving center there in south park that burned down, the school -- st. pats changed from spanish to new languages. you have a unique culture there with many families at risk and you have a large filipino
veteran association active near your folks so the fact you're expanding services and providing services to the outward areas and va programs both in soma and [inaudible] and latino and others who are a lot of the health and feeding programs are working together with the vets and their families so i think it's really an excellent work of documenting what has been done and what you propose to do and we look forward to voting on it september 2. >> thank you. >> were there any public comments? >> i didn't receive any requests for public comment. >> okay. so commissioners what we did was follow a prop q process to allow for public comment to be brought to our attention over what would have been a two week period but because we're having the planning session next meeting then it's deferred for final
resolution, passage of the resolution and further additions would be made to the resolution so then it would be passed at the following meeting. we've heard the testimony. my comments would be that i think as we're now learning this process it would be stronger from the standpoint of a resolution from us to then quantify more rather than they met certain guidelines and having increase of this or adding this but i will ask you to work with the resolution so when we submit this and the plan planning commission has a stronger reason for looking at incentives so this rephrases what the guideline was and i think in those it would be nice for us to then quantify more exactly what it is, you know, and i think our executive director spoke to that, additional cultural providers that would be coming in, the
combining of their services and enhancement of dental services because it's not clear in the resolution itself, and i think that would strengthen the fact we're not only supporting a consistency which you say we need it, but we need to make a case for then why the incentives, so that would be my suggestion in terms of strengthening our resolution. >> is there any further comment? if not we will proceed on to the next item. thank you and we will look forward to taking this up again at our next regular business meeting. thank you. >> item 8 is the san francisco general hospital san francisco master plan and voted on at the september 2 meeting. >> okay. thank you.
>> san francisco general . >> >> good afternoon commissioners. i am kathy john associated administrator at san francisco general. so this is an update for san francisco general. i'm good. all right. thanks mark. so the submission of a current update of our institutional master plan is actually a city planning code requirement of all medical and post secondary educational institutions in the city and county of san francisco, so our last update was about 2008, so it's time for us to resubmit.
i want to make sure you understand this and there is a lot of confusion and different from a campus facility master plan. the imp is a high level document that has the context to develop the future update of the campus master plan which we will be later this here hopefully at san francisco general. so in terms of objectives of the plan it provides a general overview of what has been done in the past several years on the campus as well as gives you intent of what we're trying to do in the future, so the following -- we have highlighted several item . >> >> s in the plan and including since the last update. we have the current scope of the
proposed 2015dph bond which will include items of upgrade for sfgh and seismic upgrades, building improvements, chillers, fan wall systems, that type of thing and addressing the 101 growth seismic needs, the expansion and retrofit and proposed research building has been highlighted in the plan and part of the -- research building, i'm sorry and expand the garage. the plan also is an opportunity for us to reaffirm that future developments on the campus is consistent with what we had already proposed in the 2008 environmental impact report for the rebuild project and it
provides the guidelines for future development of a more detailed campus master plan. next step is once you have approved to be submitted to the planning department which will happen in september we will submit it. we will probably be on the calendar for the planning commission in october and it's a non actionable item. we're just required to submit the plan for their approval. so if you have questions. >> commissioners the plan is before you and because it does describe the potentials of what both sf general and peripherally what the department is going to be doing it is being submitted to you for further discussion, attention, and then a passage of a resolution at our next regular business meeting. is there any public comment on this? >> i have not received any requests for public comment. >> okay.
>> yes commissioner singer. >> i have a procedural question so in what you showed us, and in the [inaudible] in front of us there are assumptions about what the 2015 bond measure will include. are we -- if we were to approve this resolution on september 2 are we then basically saying here's what we think should be in the bond measure? how does this work? >> it's a good question. it's really expressing intent but there is no final agreement in terms what's in it, so we're obligated to provide some idea of what we have been looking at at this point and time when we submit the imp. >> who is "we" ? is it general hospital? >> yeah i think we should segregate this because the commissioner has a good question. the resolution is in
regards to the institutional master plan that does not discuss the other elements that were listed on the bond issue except for those that were on the campus, and i ask that our acting director that what the resolution and what the subject is is the document and not the substance of a bond issue is. is that not correct? >> that's right. the item before you is the institutional master plan and not the bond issue. >> because i guess they're two issues both of which -- one is outside of sfgh there are things on the list that should require discussion and prioritization. it may look like how it's presented or not, and then within sfgh there is also a discussion needed to happen about the priority stack of what goes where and i'm not so in
approving this are we saying -- because i don't think we discuss said it at length at the jcc and what are the priorities for the campus, so it's a procedural question so when we do this it's outside of their purview and they don't have responsibility for it or how does this work? >> proceed. >> [inaudible] >> yeah, it's a little confusing because this is sort of a statutory -- it was developed to let people understand what was happening on campuses which is separate and apart of a more detailed effort when we did the rebuild when we met with each of the department heads at the hospital and work through programsing. we're going to do that again. we're trying to get a green light
from city hall on the 2015 bond, what is included. there is fierce competition currently with other departments because we have limited bond capacity for a piece of that pie, so we have been a little reluctant starting that more detailed process because we're getting mixed messages about the level of money that we can actually obtain in the bond and what those projects are, so we're trying to get a clearer picture so we don't go down a track and have to stop and change gears if we don't get enough money for the things we want to do. the whole process of the bond is a completely separate thing that will come to the commission, reviewed and approved and sent to the city and the mayor's office and the controller's. >> so let me give a for instance and you tell me, so for instance we wrote on this resolution and it includes some things in this plan that you
guys would like to do at the hospital, and say for instance we say "you know what actually we completely need the parking garage if we do the new usf research building which we need and that park not as important as the medical records and if we don't have that we won't have patients and out of business and the joint inspection and the commission inferred to us and we know it already so are we basically saying well that discussion is over and this is what you guys are going to the mayor's office with that's going to be in the bond, or are these place holders and up for discussion in the future? >> they're all place holders. this is more of a high level
document. anything that comes subsequently to it will trump it because it's further planning, further analysis and if there are things that don't appear in the plan now or change we have the ability to update this again in the next update. >> if i may commissioners. this is a requirement for a city requirement for any -- sorry, hospital so in patient facility or post secondary educational facility so it is a planning department requirement for large facilities and it's required every 10 years and updated every two years or as changes are made to the plan, so it's meant to be a projection of where we're going, but it's not amend to be a commitment that is absolutely the case. >> and it's irrelevant that the jcc hasn't talked about this and looked it over? >> well no. in fact there was a discussion whether it should be brought here or to the jcc.
it was thought to be appropriate to bring it here first because it was to be seen within the context of what else was at a health commission level -- with similar questions that you are now requesting. i think it's appropriate at this point since we do have the time to actually bring it down to the jcc for further discussion about the questions you have asked, more specific question about any prioritization if it's needed. usually the imp doesn't do that. they list things that people would like to place in different geographic sites on a campus, but it certainly would not be in -- out of order for us to ask the jcc to look at this and give input at the time we then will take this up for a final vote.
>> [inaudible] >> no. and as a matter of fact that's where we will remand this to the jcc to report also to us as we prepare to vote and the implications of the master plan. would that make sense director? >> i think that would be fine. >> okay. thank you. so we will ask then if there's no further comments on this that this be reviewed by the jcc also as topic prior to us looking at the resolution in the coming next business meeting in the beginning of september. okay. thank you very much. >> next item please. >> next item is the golden gate bridge suicide barrier approval and just to be clear you're not voting on this. this is on the approval approved by other
bodies. this is just information report. >> thank you. >> mark, could you put the slides on for me? thank you. good afternoon commissioners. jill robinson behavioral health director for the san francisco health network and i have been asked to come this afternoon to give you a briefing on the suicide prevention barrier on the golden gate bridge. it was approved in june of this year. i have with me eve myer who is -- i am sure most of you know and she's the executive director of our suicide prevention and
eve has very much been an advocate of the suicide prevention barrier on the bridge and worked very hard to get this approved. just to give you a quick overview and background, so our hot line is the oldest suicide prevention hot line in the united states. there are approximately 38,000 suicides in the united states annually and that's compared to 18,000 homicides and 31,000 traffic deaths so that's just to give you some information about how many people do take their own lives each year and what a tragedy it is when on the news we hear about the homicides and we hear about the traffic deaths when more folks choose to take their own lives. in san francisco there is
approximately 100 or 110 suicides annually, and about 10% are related to bridge deaths. most suicides are skewed towards older male and the bridge although it is a destination place to take one's own life it's also one of the most lethal means to take one's life. the bridge opened in 1937 and somewhere between 1600 and 2,000 people have taken their own lives onlet bridge. 1600 of these bodies were recovered. there are survivors who jump. one of the concerns about putting a barrier was the fact -- or the non fact that people
held the belief that if people don't jump from the bridge because there's a barrier that they will find another means to take their own lives and this is not true. there was a study of 500 individuals that had jumped . >> >> in the 70's that survived and it was determined that the majority were still alive or died of natural causes. in may 2014 our mental health board passed a unanimously a resolution of the barrier and one of the concerns was the cost and we will go to the budget in a bit but millions are spent
annually controlling the bridge helping make sure people don't jump so here's the budget of the project total is projected to be around $83 million. you will see that the funding came from various sources. $7 million came from california's prop 63. those were state dollars, not dollars designated to san francisco. so some of the opposition -- some people thought it wouldn't be attractive to have a suicide prevention barrier on the bridge. others believed as i said earlier that people that are suicidal will go elsewhere to take their over lives, and studies are showing that indeed is not true. it is also not true that someone who opts jump from a bridge will go to
another bridge. a bridge in washington, the duke ellington bridge and a visible bridge and when a suicide prevention barrier was placed there there were no transfers of jump to the neighboring bridge, so here's an artist's rendition of what the project will look like when it's completed in 2014. and we're both here to answer any questions. >> commissioners. commissioner singer. >> so congratulations on getting this done. this is 10% of the suicides in san francisco. what's next on your list? >> the two most sail yenlt
things you can to do is removing lethal means and educating primary care physicians so we would like to move into linkages with health care and institutions and emergency facilities, so that there is an educational cross fertilization there and people can recognize the signs of suicide. of people that tried suicide 75% saw a physician three months prior to their death. >> thank you. >> commissioner sanchez. >> again along with my colleagues i would just like to complement you for your sustained and critical efforts over the years in really addressing and providing a focus
on this illness, and your commitment has paid off as you hoped it would and paid off in the context it was approved by the board. they are putting money into the golden gate and we want to commend you on it. i think you were steadfast here and consistent and focused, and a prime mover and thank you very much. >> thank you commissioner sanchez. i actually cannot take total credit for this. there were a lot of other people involved. starting 50 years ago with our founder bernard mays who founded kqmd and in the 1970's he held a demonstration which reverend jim jones of all people participated on a march on the bridge to get a barrier and those efforts continued over the years. in the last three or four years the dominant force
became parents of children who had been lost, mostly teenagers, on the bridge who came before the bridge directors over and over again, and that really turned the corner. >> great. thank you. >> thank you. definitely it's nice to hear an important outcome like this after all the discussion about what we can do and our commission congratulates you for your persistence and your success. is there any further comment at this point? thank you very much. and we will move on to the next item. >> yes and i will note that haven't received any public comment for that item. the next item 10 is a resolution honoring sonia melara and commissioners i placed in front of you a slightly revised version. i took out the "e" misspelling
of former mayor gavin newsom's name and added words reappointment to give a schedule of the appointment as a health commissioner. >> commissioners we have before us a resolution to commend commissioner melara's service here on the commission. is there a motion to accept? >> so moved. >> so moved. >> okay. moved and acceptance. a second already. any further discussion? we definitely will be missing commissioner melara and we are wishing her well of course at the police commission. i look forward to improved relationship with the police commission that serves us so well already so if we're prepared for the vote. all those in favor please say aye. >> aye. >> all those opposed. the resolution is passed and we hope
to present it to her at our planting meeting at our next meeting. >> item 11 is other business. >> okay. we're at other business, and commissioners i would note though that with commissioner melara leaving the position of vice president is vacant and we will then be entertaining nominations and a vote for that on september 2 our next regular meeting date and we will let the other commissioners who are unable to be here also notified of that. >> yes. we will make sure that happens commissioner. >> thank you. so that is an agenda item on september 2. >> the next item 12 is a report back from the joint conference committee and committees and the only committee that met was laguna honda on july 29. >> okay. i noted the typo here
and looks like laguna honda will report on the sfgh. >> yeah, i apologize. >>i was wondering how we're going to do this. okay. yes. >> through the chair. she had to leave -- >> yes. >> for the graduation of master students but we had a full committee at laguna honda meeting with our commissioners there and we reviewed the reporting of compliance report. we also heard the quality measures for 2014 and what is reported here is what was the last result of the visits namely five stars for nursing staff, five for quality measure and four overall and two stars for health inspection so we were anticipating hoping this visit this year will result in elevating back to the five stars
again across all sectors. we approved the 2014-15 budget and had discussions -- comments and good community input pertaining to hospital wide policies and procedures of that. as a follow up from the request of the commission the discharge rate from 2013 to 2014 was 10%. the total discharges were 292 and again the chart shows we're in fact -- in county, out county, et cetera. it was actually stated in our full board meeting there and committed to the laguna honda joint conference committee. we had a closed session pertaining to medical approvals and credentials and a